TL;DR VersionFood inflation or the economical bubble is an all too same sight is causing the need for food to be shifted onto poorer countries

Basically foreign investment farming is a fancy term for a corporation such as McDonald giving money to a poor country with farmland to "develop"the area. I use the term ambiguously because the country usually obtains land that are desperately needed for the people or destroys their forests (Source)

The big deal of this is because the chain of events called cause and effect... eliminating place such as the rainforest absolutely destroys biodiversity (Source), causes more carbon monoxide to be place in the area, and so take food from country that already heavily depends on foreign aid (explained below).

What is forcing this... over population thus to overcome this we increase supply. It may seem that we are trying to help Africa by providing a means to farm and be self substaining but this false imo... I believe that the corporations that are funding the operation in the poor country sole intent it use the land of a poor country to send back to usa and other wealthy countries so that they can keep a failing system going. Even i have no directly stated proof i did find this quote which states

Which means land is not really owned by the farmers but by the corporation that loaned it out. Doesn't sound so bad at first but if you think about it carefully this means that the farmer has an obligation to send what meager crops they grow go back to the investor meaning the agricultural wealth is simply transferred back to wealthiest players so not much is gained by the farmers in the end.

Outlook to the future at least for me is bleak because our dependance and addiction to oil will soon cause the UN-renewable resource to be shifted on bio-fuels causing even more strain and inflation on food causing mass starvation thus more farming land will be needed looping the cycle over and over again. So all this has done is slow the inevitable food bubble; its now we are left with a system bursting at its seams.

it can be solved by activists who know stuff which can help poor countries, so theat stuff is told to the poor, and the poor wont think they need help from corporations.

I don't know what you're saying here.

✓ Poor✓ Corporations✓ Activists

I'm not sure what he's trying to communicate either. It seems more like he's attempting to know what he's talking about (by saying corporations and activists) which I interpreted as those with knowledge passing their knowledge to third world countries, which... really won't help them.

Everyone in this topic seems to be painting as monochromatic black and white. If only corporation XYZ stepped back, then we'd be able to send humanitarians, and they'd actually do something! There are other issues at play here, one of them being...

Let's waste 50% of food and then claim we don't have enough.And instead of improving agriculture, let's just use more land.

America, and I would gamble most of the first world, is INCREDIBLY wasteful with how we view food. There was a reason preservatives were created, and quite a few of them are not going to kill you. Do you really need to sample that food before buying it? Is that bread really going to mold ten minutes after the expiration date hits? And people who don't FIFO or follow stocking procedures - I pulled a dozen loaves of bread of one type last time I closed, because some moron decided to stock out 8 of each flavor instead of two or three (like I had suggested the last time I did this). People who open product, touch product, or try product and then demand it warmed up a little - do they not realize as soon as they touch something unwrapped I can't sell it again? I can't reheat it with a steam wand or slice it because it qualifies as contamination. And the mentality that leads to this - if things aren't stocked appealingly then people won't buy it, because something there is inferred that the product out must be 'bad' or 'old' if there's only one out...meaning we have to stock out more...which won't sell...so that that one looks better.

There are other issues, but this one really hit me. The only good thing I can say is that any food that is pulled at the end of the night (unless its moldy or contaminated) we donate to food banks in the area. But charity starts at home.

The funny thing is, given the societal backlash of GMO products, the food replicator will probably have a similar response. Think about the conspiracies that have come about from GMO and from similar things - and I'm not just talking about it tasting better.

The funny thing is, given the societal backlash of GMO products, the food replicator will probably have a similar response. Think about the conspiracies that have come about from GMO and from similar things - and I'm not just talking about it tasting better.

The Potato Famine in Ireland was largely due to dependency on the potato crop, so that when it suffered (or when over farming the land for it sucked out nutrients) it took most of the country with it. Although the first world - namely America - is dependent on wheat or corn, we are much better about farming it now, and there is an ample supply of substitutes. If you truly wish to go the path that wheat/corn based products are geared towards the lower class, I will say it is just a easy to buy quinoa with foodstamps as it would be to buy wheat products.

I don't mean to hand wave our own problems, especially with malnutrition, but comparing the occasional tomato crop freezing to the potato famine is a pretty steep slippery slope argument.

The question here is whether or not it is ethical to buy farmland from other countries who are struggling to feed their own people, not if we're going to face a mass extinction due to food inflation.

i was talking about the fact that teaching poor people in shit countries might help them. This way they wont sell their land to outsider corporations in hope of getting help.

I hate to break it to you, but some of the biggesthumanitarianefforts are shrouded with controversy. Not to say you should only trust the critics of organizations, but its not a good idea to blindly assume nonprofits/not-for-profits don't have something to gain by helping troubled countries.

Once the world economy starts to stagnate I wonder if Africa will be left behind for eternity or ... foreign development ... as in oil rigs, mines, and ripping off even more farms lmao.

As far as I'm concerned if the government corruption and public knowledge isn't improving in Africa then the select countries will be left in the dust. If I had to guess South Africa, Nigeria, and some North African countries, and a couple others will improve while the rest are gonna still be complete shit 50 years from now and we'll just drain their resources dry.

i was talking about the fact that teaching poor people in shit countries might help them. This way they wont sell their land to outsider corporations in hope of getting help.

I hate to break it to you, but some of the biggesthumanitarianefforts are shrouded with controversy. Not to say you should only trust the critics of organizations, but its not a good idea to blindly assume nonprofits/not-for-profits don't have something to gain by helping troubled countries.

Also, don't cuss. It makes your argument sound less intelligent.

Of course, i got it. But i was implying direct help (helping the poor, not helping others who allegedly help them).

Ireland was a net exporter during the potato famine to England. They shipped out all their good food before keeping it for themselves.

Irish farmers were already having trouble supporting their family. They had to switch to potatoes to feed their family because they were so cheap and fed so much. I'm afraid that if other countries start buying farmland in other areas and a plague does hit which ruins crops, we will see something similar, especially if the companies keep exporting all the good crops.

I can't say it will happen again, in fact I'd like to believe that in such a situation the companies would feed the population and take a loss for the year. But who knows what might happen? I'm of the opinion that efficiency is key. It is not efficient to produce electronics in china then ship them all across the world. Likewise it is not efficient to grow food in Africa, send it to Europe, then send it back to Africa. If it's cheaper that way, then there is a serious problem somewhere.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 19 2012, 2:59 pm by rockz.